Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:39, 31 March 2022

Revision as of 00:06, 23 April 2022

Line 14:

**(double edit conflict)Well, it's not really spam when it's only on the most relevant pages. If he'd left the message to all the creators of feautred pictures, I think I'd care a lot more, but this is very focoused notification, informing of the proposal. Anyway, as you noted on the BRFA page, Peter, BRFA isn't a vote - only discussion, so these comments shouldn't matter. I ''think'' I went to the page based on the post on AN, and made a suggestion on the page - not a vote, a suggestion. I belive that this was probably Dragon Flight's aim when leaving the messages - to get ideas, which he has got in abundance there (and one can get ideas from oppose votes, to satisfy their reasons for opposition). <strong>[[User:Martinp23|Mart]][[User_talk:Martinp23|<span style="color:red;">inp23</span>]]</strong> 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day&diff=98543621&oldid=98542932 this] canvassing, and secondly, when we say canvassing, aren't we mainly talking about spamming messages? We have here five independently-tailored messages in five separate situations where he's encouraging people to support a bot. I think it's within his rights, as the bot's creator, to offer arguments as to why it is a good idea. It doesn't really make sense to say he's not allowed to talk about it at all, or that he must give the appearance of being neutral over whether his bot is approved or not. The one qualm I have is where he says to go !vote in support and provides a link, but that is a very minor quibble at best. --[[User:Cyde|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</fontspan>]] 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the [[WP:SPAM]] section on canvassing and I must say I see no great issue here. One distiction made was the level of disruption made by the crossposting. This doesn't seem to like an "''aggressive propaganda campaign''" to me (unless you can provide more spamdiffs to support the claim), but rather "''reasonable amount of communication about issues''". Deliberate and single-purpose spamming is bad, while mentioning a discussion on related occasions is no worse than advertising a WikiProject in a signature. [[User:Misza13|Миша]][[User talk:Misza13|<span style="color:green">'''13'''</span>]] 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 32:

::Sorry, I was the first vote. I just figured it couldn't hurt to support early. (It so happens that I also think that a RfA isn't even necessary, but if it goes live I'll support it.) [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think an RFA is necessary when the bot owner is already an admin. Bot owners are already responsible for everything their bots do. Giving a bot a sysop flag when the owner is already a sysop is a simple matter of deciding if the bot is a good idea &mdash; and since we all agree that this one is &mdash; it should be granted. [[WP:RFA]] is for granting sysop access to ''humans'', and if you look at all of the normal questions and procedure that go on in RFA, you'll see that they're totally unnecessary and irrelevant when dealing with a person who is already a sysop and just needs a second flagged account for bot usage. --[[User:Cyde|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</fontspan>]] 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cyde. I had assumed, per the precedent set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA any bot with sysop functions would need to be approved through the normal RfA channel, since Tawker was already an admin at that point and he had to go through an RfA process. I realise there is a vast difference in what TawkerbotTorA and ProtectionBot do, but shouldn't the bot still have to go through an RfA process ? --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] | [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</font> 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::Per my own previous comments on Jmaxbot, I concur with Cyde. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)